Top Law Schools

I’ve been fortunate enough to receive 3 lateral offers for a junior tax position. Two are lower v100 firms that start off at market then get compressed fairly quickly. The other is a tax boutique (think Cap Dry, Miller Chevalier, Ivins, Roberts & Holland).

I’m leaving my firm because the fit just isn’t right. We’ve had a lot of turnover at the partner levels in my group since I started.

Anyway, obviously it would be great to eventually end up at one of these boutiques, but I’m wondering if it would be better to stay at a full service firm for a longer period of time. I do a lot of deal work and what I understand is that the work I’ll be doing at the boutique is less deal focused and more controversy and policy focused. I would like to keep doing some deal work for the foreseeable future and that’s why I’m leaning towards one of the two v100 firms.

FWIW, both of the v100 firms are chambers ranked in the city as well.

Has anyone been in a similar position? I’m just afraid that if I say no to the boutique now, I won’t be able to get a job at one of these boutiques in the future.

I was actually in the same exact position as you, multiple offers at the junior level with one in a boutique (not in tax, though). I wound up going to one of my full service options, and I don't regret it. You can always go from biglaw to a boutique, but it's harder to make a jump in the other direction. So long as you're doing the work at your V100 that you'd do a boutique, you'll only be more marketable as a mid-level.

These boutiques aren't all created equal and don't all do the same kind of work. This should matter to your choice. The city also matters.

If in DC, then I'd take a long, hard look at the boutiques, especially Ivins, before going to a V100--particularly if you're interested in tax controversy. If in NYC and interested in deal-related work, then maybe a V100 makes more sense than Roberts & Holland.

It’s my impression that the D.C. tax boutiques tend to be more controversy focused and/or get involved in esoteric niches. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it’s just different from the more M&A or fund oriented practice in most biglaw firms.

To a large extent, it’s a question of what you want.

As a mid-level tax associate, I would prefer to stick with deal work at a V100 because it seems like if you can do that work reasonably well then you can keep a roof over your head.

Anonymous User wrote:As a mid-level tax associate, I would prefer to stick with deal work at a V100 because it seems like if you can do that work reasonably well then you can keep a roof over your head.

OP here. I was wondering what you meant about the second half. From what I’ve heard, the jobs at the elite tax boutiques are more stable jobs. And they pay more than the V100 job I’m considering.

I guess I’m at a crossroads because i want to do M&A for now, but could see myself getting more into policy and controversy later. I’ve heard, from discussions with a few people in the field, that the boutiques may not be interested later on if my work is mostly M&A tax because it doesn’t really overlap with their more controversy and niche question practice areas.

And to some of the other posters, I just put the firms into one clump because I don’t want to out myself and those firms are generally known as the elite tax boutiques (with Ivins being the best).

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:As a mid-level tax associate, I would prefer to stick with deal work at a V100 because it seems like if you can do that work reasonably well then you can keep a roof over your head.

OP here. I was wondering what you meant about the second half. From what I’ve heard, the jobs at the elite tax boutiques are more stable jobs. And they pay more than the V100 job I’m considering.

I guess I’m at a crossroads because i want to do M&A for now, but could see myself getting more into policy and controversy later. I’ve heard, from discussions with a few people in the field, that the boutiques may not be interested later on if my work is mostly M&A tax because it doesn’t really overlap with their more controversy and niche question practice areas.

And to some of the other posters, I just put the firms into one clump because I don’t want to out myself and those firms are generally known as the elite tax boutiques (with Ivins being the best).

I think it's a different calculus if the V100 pays less. I'd probably just take the money then. That way you get into the policy/controversy areas earlier too, like you said.

I've just seen people who were good (not necessarily great) senior associates land counsel roles at market paying firms because those firms have to have capable tax lawyers for M&A, and that seems like a decent outcome for tax and something you could stick with for awhile. That's all I meant by my comment. I don't know as much about the boutiques though in terms of advancement and where people end up.